I recently posted a bit with More Than You Care to Know About BL1Y.com, where I mentioned getting blown off by a girl who had read my blog. We met at a bar, hung out one time after that, yadda yadda yadda, I never hear from her again. Until this comment showed up:

ok, lets get this straight. I don’t give a rats ass about you t1 law degree. I stopped calling because you were pushy and self absorbed. We hung out and you told me that i wasn’t as hot as i thought i was. In addition, your shirt was too small, you live with your parents (on the wrong side of town) and your unemployed. Lastly, you told me a story about throwing up in bed with your girl friend, and having to think about if you should wake her up or not. Can we just be friends???

Now, I normally think it’s pretty lame to point out typos, especially online. It’s the internet, after all. The only thing more common online than typos is porn. But, this one has reached a Mystalian level, so I really can’t respond without first addressing the incredibly poor writing skills exhibited here. It’s rat’s ass, not rats ass; your t1 law degree, not you t1; let’s, not lets; i should be capitalized (three times), you’re unemployed not your unemployed, and girlfriend is one word, not two.

Moving on however, yes, I do live with my parents. So do you. No, I don’t live on the bad side of town, I live past the bad side of town, where it gets nice again.

And no, my shirt wasn’t too small, my doughy body is simply too fat, there’s a difference. One is caused by buying clothes that don’t fit. The other is caused by buying clothes that do fit, and then adopting a diet of pizza and beer for four months.

And yes, I did say you weren’t as hot as you think you are. This was because of the rant you went on when we first met, where you couldn’t get over how hot you think you are. You might not remember that part of the conversation, because at that point your shed had already collapsed and taken most of the fence with it.

But the thing that really irks me about this response is that you say I told you about puking in bed with my girlfriend. That absolutely 100% did not happen. Not ever. Nor did I say it happened. That’s terrible, and I don’t like it when people spread lies.

I pooped in bed with my girlfriend, not puked. There is a world of difference.

[I had a bad case of food poisoning and woke up in the middle of shitting myself, ran to the bathroom to contain the mess, and while crapping my brains out wrestled with whether I should shout to my girlfriend (who was still asleep) and warn her about the liquid mess I'd left in the bed. If I didn't wake her, she might move around in her sleep and discover it. If I did wake her, she might move around while groggy, before it sinks in that I'm telling her not to move. It's a tough call, and I chose to keep quiet. When I was done, I woke her and had her get out of bed on the other side.]

Obviously it might be easy to mishear and think I said puke instead of poop, but the story doesn’t make sense that way. How could I even contemplate shouting something to wake her up if I was puking? It only works if the nastiness is coming out of a hole other than the one I talk with.

I understand now why you blew me off. Obviously this misunderstanding has caused you to think I’m a bad story teller. I wouldn’t be interested in a guy who told the puke version of that story either.

As for my tier 1 law degree, of course you don’t care about it. Obviously anyone going to Samford University Cumberland School of Law, Grocery, and Car Wash doesn’t really care much about good schools. …Not that NYU is a good school. They’re all pretty bad (except maybe Northwestern, they look decent), but at least NYU is at the top of the curve. (Also, only TTT students refer to NYU as tier 1; students at good schools use the t-14 v. shit school distinction.) While you shouldn’t really care about my degree, you should care about the toilet degree you’re about to spend three years on. (She has a full scholarship, so it only costs time, effort, and opportunity.)

Salaries for lawyers are bimodal. This means the distribution isn’t a bell curve, but instead has two peaks.

There’s a cluster of people making $160,000, and a cluster making $40,000-$60,000, with a few people in the middle. There are very good outcomes and very bad outcomes, and 99% of the good outcomes are reserved for students from the elite schools (the top third of t1).

Legal salary distribution is like anal sex. Anal sex is either going to be really good or really awful. There is no mediocre anal sex. The kids at Harvard, Columbia, UVA, etc have a virtual monopoly on condoms and lube, so going to a TTT is pretty much like sentencing yourself to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

When I enrolled in law school there wasn’t this wealth of information out there coming from all the disenchanted lawyers warning the next generation to stay away. None of us knew that our schools were committing fraud with their employment stats, or that professors were actively working on making law school even less useful to students. But, that information is out there now, and it’s easy to find. Use it. Making bad decisions because you conducted poor research is not a habit you should be cultivating as an attorney-to-be.

And, to answer your question, I guess we can be friends. It’s not like there’s a whole lot else going on in this town and it’s too much trouble to avoid all the girls who aren’t interested in me.

PS: If your MO is to blow people off with radio silence instead of telling them you’re simply not interested, you may want to check out the amazing (1, 2) 3-part round table discussion on the wimpy behavior of lawyers.

Back in March, a story appeared over on Life @ 160 titled The Worst Thing 160 Has Ever Done, in which he describes black mailing a girlfriend into having sex with him.

Then, a little while ago, Ben Corman of AttentionCrash.net discussed the story on his radio show with Dr. Rob. During the discussion, Corman contrasted 160′s story with the writing of Tucker Max. Corman said that 160′s piece lacked the sort of self-aware remorse that Tucker has. While Tucker does a lot of really terrible stuff, he is sure to convey that he’s aware of just how rotten it is. 160′s story lacks this self awareness.

But, in another post at Life at 160, 160 defends his story, noting that while the story isn’t self aware of its depravity, 160 himself is, and that he thought that the self aware writing style would have taken away from the piece. And then Corman responded on his blog.

So, expert on everything that I am, I decided I’m going to weigh in.

In my senior year of undergrad I took an upper level fiction writing seminar. Throughout the semester everyone wrote three short stories, and would be in the hot seat on three separate occasions. When in the hot seat, everyone else in the class (who had read yourself earlier) would discuss it for about 30-45 minutes.

And you were expected to sit there and shut up.

You could answer basic factual questions. Is the character named St. John supposed to be an allusion to Jane Eyre? What does “contrariwise” mean? What you could not do was defend your work against your classmate’s opinion.

Someone thinks the story drags at times, don’t respond. Someone doesn’t like your word choice, keep quiet. Someone thinks the story is pointless drivel that should be relegated to nothing more than a footnote in a Candace Bushnell novel, make a note of that.

Not only is it unseemly to defend your writing style, but it’s also a sign that your writing isn’t very good. If you have to make an argument for why your writing is good, that means that the argument isn’t contained within the writing itself. Your writing should speak for itself, and shouldn’t rely on having you following it around explaining it or defending it to critics.

Also, the first line in the “About” section of your blog should not be:

Life at 160 is a strange lifestyle-ish blog with a very slight legal slant. If we had a counter, it would read in the millions (seriously).

Thanks to those of you who voted me in the Feministe’s Next Top Troll competition, but unfortunately I didn’t come anywhere remotely close to winning. Freaking 6% of the vote.

I should probably chalk this loss up to the pitiful power of my internet celebrity (come on people! if Stephen Colbert can win competitions to have a part of the International Space Station named after him, I should be able to win a lousy internet poll!), but I’m going to blame this on the fact that I wasn’t actually trolling with my comment.

As I explained earlier, I wasn’t trolling, but rather just pointing out that feeling like you aren’t lusted after sexually is basically the daily norm for all but a few men. Surprisingly, several of the readers came to my defense, arguing that not only was I not trolling, I had a legitimate point to make. While women complain about being looked at too sexually, most men would love to get just a little bit of that type of attention. Just look at the way nudity is used in movies:

Naked female butt = Sexy.

Naked male butt = Funny.

Here’s my favorite comment from one of the readers:

I do believe this guy’s insecurities are sincere, and men as well as women are victims of body-shaming. But, yeah…”men are body-shamed, too!” is not really helpful, denies the existence of sexism, and is also an awesome silencing technique.

Wow! I never knew my comment was so loaded with meaning. I should be a freaking poet!

Alright lady, here’s a basic course in English and logical reasoning skills. If I’m arguing that a similar or corresponding problem exists for men as it does for women, I can’t possibly be denying the problem facing women. To say “we have it bad, too” acknowledges that you have it bad, and simply says that we’re all in the same boat together. When a Mexican says to a black man, “Hey soul-hombre, we got it bad, too,” and the black guy replies “Yeah, but at least we ain’t Arabs,” they’re not denying that any of their groups is discriminated against, they’re accepting that each of them has the same problem.

This just goes to show the sort of Us v. Them mentality that infects a lot of mainstream feminism. They’re not interested in working out solutions or exploring what is actually going on. They just want to fight and they want to win, and they can’t win unless there’s a loser, and that loser has to be men.

There are, of course, a lot of feminists who are actually interested in fighting sexism in whatever form it takes, and hoorah for them. It sucks they get lumped in with the people who disguise their bigotry with equality.

And, just to really drive home how closed minded, intolerant, and hypocritical some of these women are, let me tell you how the troll contest ended. I got ban-hammered. Now, of course it’s the right of anyone who operates a blog to allow or disallow whatever comments they want. But, the right to do something is not the same as the right to avoid criticism. Here’s the comment that got me banned:

[Mod note: warning for trans readers re: misgendering]

Imagine an M->F transgendered person made the complaint that as a man he feels he can’t experience the kind of sexiness that might be available to him as a female.

Still trolling?

Before getting into the substance of the comment, be sure to take a good look at the warning the moderators posted. Warning for transgendered readers! This douchenozzle refers to a (hypothetical) man who desires to be a woman as “he!” If you don’t avert your eyes, your fragile trans-sensibilities may be permanently upset!

Look, you dumb cow, if you’ve survived one day being transgendered, you have a thick enough skin to not have your life shattered over a pretty benign post on the blogosphere. You don’t need some random wannabe-do-gooder protecting you like you’re a little child. Trannies are capable of getting ticked-off for themselves, and when they do, they do it with knives, not faux-progressivism.

But, on to the substance. It’s a legitimate freaking question! Do you really think the readers of Feministe would have been so quick to suggest that my complaint stemmed from a dysfunctional penis (sexist and ablist! sweet!) if they believed I was transgendered? Frack no! The comments would have instantly been about how awful the world has been to me by imposing hetero-normativity and traditional masculinity, and how unfair it is that just because I was born male I wouldn’t get to experience what it’s like to be feminine.

Call a self-righteous hypocritical bigot out, and down comes the ban-hammer.

Now, the moderators claimed that I was banned for improper pronoun usage in referring to a trans woman as “he,” because the proper thing to do is refer to a trans woman as “she.”

Says who? Katherine McKinnon? Carol Gilligan? Some other High Holy Priestess of All Things Gender?

Sorry, but no, this isn’t France, this is America, and in America we don’t have to take orders from some grammar pontiff.

Some trans gender people live as their sex assigned at birth, not as the gender they want to be, and they are well within their rights to do so. Take, for example, Eddie Izzard. Yes, he dresses up in women’s clothing for a lot of his shows and pretty clearly wants to be a woman, but he refers to himself as a man, wears men’s clothes more than women’s, has grown facial hair, and makes a hideous woman (but a decent looking man, which is why he probably dresses as a man so much). He’s even kept an unambiguously masculine name. I refer to Eddie Izzard as “he,” because that’s how he generally presents himself, and how I think he would prefer I talk about him.

Trans gender comes in a thousand different flavors, …sweet, delicious flavors… …And there’s no one set of rules, grammar or otherwise, that is going to fit everyone. Sanctimonious women’s studies professors can’t create any rule that is going to trump mine: if you live as a man, I call you “he,” and if you live as a woman, I call you “she.” That’s it, and I’ll be shocked if anyone finds a system that’s more fair or tolerant.

I grew up in the South and so I, like most people of my generation from here, have very little patience for bigotry of any kind. When you come from an area with the sort of stigma we have, you are more conscious of the issues and work doubly hard to avoid repeating the mistakes of prior generations.

So, if you find Feministe to be as idiotic and self-righteous as I do, feel free to contact the person responsible for putting me on “permanent moderation,” Chally: chally.zeroatthebone@gmail.com

And PS , you dumb fracking bovine, despite your hand-wringing over accidentally referring to a “trans woman” as a “transwoman,” the polite way to refer to a man who lives his life as a woman is not “trans woman,” it’s just “woman.” But hey, I guess it’s cool to marginalize the very people you think you’re sticking up for, so long as you treat them like children in a very public way and refer to yourself as “one of those scary feminists.”

Karen Shapiro over at The Legal Intelligencer has just written an article on how to make yourself into an even bigger, more insufferable tool, Stand Out as a Lawyer Through Personal Branding. Now, I could understand if the article was aimed at attorneys working in solo practice or boutiques, where the attorney and the firm aren’t really distinguishable and branding yourself is part of firm marketing. But, nope, this article is about branding yourself within the firm to build your reputation with your coworkers.

Once the freshness of starting a new legal job dissipates, some lawyers can experience a sense of malaise that may come in part from feeling like their uniqueness just doesn’t matter. There may be a sense of serving as a mere “cog in the wheel” of legal machinery. While the legal work produced may at times seem rote or somewhat factory-driven, the truth of the matter is lawyers are not simply interchangeable, fungible beings. You are each unique individuals who have something distinct to offer.

Yeah, you’re all special, unique snowflakes. The doc review you do is distinct and no one else quite does it like you. What is this shit?

Especially in today’s economy, you will benefit from understanding what makes you distinct and special. Make a list of the ways you contribute something special at work for your superiors, your colleagues, your clients and your prospective clients. Perhaps its your energy, your focus, your creativity or your intellect. In many cases, it’s the blend or unique mix of attributes or endearing quirks that makes a person remarkable in their workplace. Think of interesting combinations of traits you embody or aspire to embody, such as “quiet confidence,” “sophisticated yet fun” or “gentle giant.”

I don’t know who would brand themselves as a gentle giant in the law firm context, but “quiet confidence” or “sophisticated yet fun” basically cover the rest of law firm associates. “Personality-Deficient Drone” and “Newly Personality-Deficient Drone,” respectively. So much for the “you are each unique individuals” thing.

The only associates who don’t fit either the “quiet confidence” or “sophisticated yet fun” molds are the drunk slackers, and not only should they not brand themselves as such, they’re just not going to brand themselves at all within their law firm because they realize it’s such douchy, toolish behavior, and completely useless.

The February edition of UK Cosmo explores four common fantasies women think about when what you’re doing in bed just isn’t cutting it.

Our poll revealed that eight of out of 10 of you use fantasies to help reach orgasm. But what do your erotic thoughts really mean?

Most of the advice is the normal, tame bread and butter of Cosmo, but one of the fantasies discussed takes a very bad turn.

Sex is like breakfast — cereal monogamy gets very samey. [Nevermind that the pun is referencing serial monogamy, the practice of having a series of wives.] But throw in a banana or a soft, fuzzy peach and suddenly it seems mouthwateringly delicious. Fruity fantasies about sex with more than one paerson — male or female – are very common and merely indicate a love of new experiences, not that you want a three-in-a-bed romp. For example, research from the University of Toroonto showed that women were notably more aroused when shown footage of a nake woman doing a workout than when they saw naked men doing yoga. It doesn’t mean they’re lesbians. “Many women are turned on by the idea of exploring another woman’s body, and doing it in the company of her own boyfriend makes it less intimidating and an erotic experience for everyone,” says Sadie.

To avoid inviting the green-eyed monster to join you between the sheets, take things slowly. “Mention that you had an erotic dream involving another man or woman — preferably not someone you know – and watch his response,” says Ian. “If he seems into it, feed him some more details.” Then try introducing it in the bedroom. By ‘it’ we mean the idea, not an actual person. [...] “Talk about what you’d do to the other person if they were in bed with you,” Sadie. “That can be incredibly erotic without the risks associated with bringing a third person into your bed.”

So basically this is going to go one of two ways. Either, you tell your boyfriend you want to bring another man into bed with you, and you end up with an ex-boyfriend shaped hole in the wall where he ran through it to get away from you, or you tell him you want to bring another girl into bed but refuse to do it, and end up with a boyfriend cheating on you because you keep talking about how great being with another woman would be.

The clip is pretty standard fare for Colbert. With some green screen technology and old clips from Hannity’s show on Fox, Colbert creates a fake interview in which he pimps out an all-to-eager Hannity. And, as if Colbert wasn’t funny enough, here’s Ann Bartow’s take on the whole thing:

More evidence that Supposedly Liberal Dudes view women as second class citizens. The way that Colbert frames prostitution as the most degrading thing possible is creepy and sad. And anyone who thinks legalization would make any difference in the level of contempt thrown at people who sell sex should investigate similar cultural references to women in pornography.

Whaaaat?

First of all, Colbert isn’t necessarily liberal, he just has a liberal fan base. There is little evidence of what Colbert’s political views are. Sure, his show ridicules the right, but he always goes after the extremists and fanatics. Plenty of people on both sides are fed up with the crazy fringe elements. The only thing we really know is that Colbert is a devout Catholic.

Moving on, the clip does nothing to suggest women are second class citizens. In fact, it doesn’t even mention women. It mentions prostitutes, but in the context of gay prostitution. Apparently to Ann Bartow prostitution is an issue which only concerns women and gay prostitutes (who face far more dangerous working conditions than women) simply don’t matter. I guess they’re third-class citizens.

Colbert also never suggests that prostitution is the most degrading thing ever. In fact, the idea of pimping out Sean Hannity seems to suggest that the sex industry may be a respectable way to earn your keep.

Once again, some brilliant analysis from the fine minds educating American law students. (Ann Bartow is a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, where she teaches intellectual property, and is an administrator for the Feminist Law Professors Blog.)

Biurny Gonzales, a 27 year old Bronx woman, has been convicted of perjury for the false rape claims she made against William McCaffrey. She had accused McCaffrey of raping her at knife point in 2005. McCaffrey has spent 4 years in prison for the crime, and has been released after Gonzales’s confession. She has been sentenced to spend 3 year in prison, but will become eligible for parole in 1 year, a quarter of the time McCaffrey spent in prison because of her lie.

So what was Gonzales’s reason for the false accusation?

She had been out with her friends one night and accepted a ride from McCaffrey. When she returned to her friends later they were mad that she ditched them, so she made up a phony story about being raped to get their sympathy. Then she reported the story to doctors, police officers, prosecutors, a grand jury, and the jury that convicted McCaffrey.

It’s a victory for the criminal justice system that someone making a false accusation of any crime is convicted. But, 1-3 years in prison seems like an awfully light punishment.

Another gem from this month’s Cosmo magazine. This one is a guide to translating texts that guys send. Somehow this article (and the entire text has been reproduced here) was too big a task for just the writer, Korrin Miller. The magazine cites four other people as sources: Debra Goldstein and Olivia Baniuszewicz, coauthors of Flirtexting, Kristina Grish, author of The Joy of Text, and Les Parrott, coauthor of L.O.V.E. Yet, all of these braniacs combined were incapable of deciphering SMS one liners, so I’ve added comments giving the real translation along with the correct responses.

His Go-to Texts: A few words that communicate nada but make you feel obligated to respond. Common examples: “hey,” “what’s up?” “talk to me.”

Translation: This guy wants you to know he is thinking about you and is craving reassurance that he’s on your mind too.

Your Move: His ego needs a little stroking, so try “what’s up, sexy?” to boost his mojo while matching his mellow approach.

Real Meaning: If he’s asking you “what’s up?” it generally means he wants to make plans and are asking if you’re free. The other messages, like “hey” or “talk to me” mean “I’m needy! Pay attention to me!”

Your Better Move: If he’s an attention whore through texts, dump him. You don’t want to get stuck with a guy who needs constant validation. The last thing you want to do is reinforce this behavior.

His Go-to Texts: Loaded question like “what are you up to tonight?” and “you made plans with the girls this weekend, right?”

Translation: He wants to feel out your response before putting his neck on the line.

Your Move: Play cow. Try “what do you have in mind?” to make him tell you what he wants.

Real Meaning: He’s asking to spend time with you, but doing so in stages. This isn’t to protect his neck though. It’s because he’s on a fact-finding mission. If he asks “Do you want to see Avatar tonight?” and you say no, he doesn’t know if it’s because you have plans, don’t want to hang out with him at all, or just don’t want to see a lame Pocahontas knockoff. Asking the question in stages lets him get a more detailed response.

Your Better Move: Answer the questions in a way that is unambiguous. “I have plans, maybe another time?” “Already saw Avatar, something else?” and “I’m not interested in you, sorry,” are good responses. The more information you exchange the better.

His Go-to Texts: A string of characters that are even more maddening because you can almost figure them out. Along the lines of “last nit u tuk itt 2 krzy” or “: \ ?”

Translation: He feels like the two of you can practically read each other’s mind, which is why he doesn’t translate his thoughts into English.

Your Move: Let him know you are still on the same wavelength (but have no clue what that meant) with a flirty “are you texting drunk again?” Call me. xo.”

Real Meaning: There are three possibilities on this one. The first is obvious, that he’s drunk and just can’t form a coherent text. The second is that he’s retarded and his sober language skills are that bad.

The third possibility is kind of interesting. The guy will have only recently met you, maybe gone out once or twice, but there isn’t a strong line of communication between you. A non-sense (or blank) text is basically a ping, so see if anything comes back. If you’re not at all interested, we know you won’t reply at all. And we know you might not reply to something dull like “hey.” But non-sense text tends to get a girl’s attention more and is thus more likely to get a ping-back. An out of the blue “I hat you” can also work. (Yes, intentionally misspell hate for some Kaufman-esque confusion.)

Your Better Move: Your move all depends on how much you like the guy. If he’s drunk and you’re horny, text him back. If he’s retarded and you don’t think you can do any better, text him back. If it’s a ping and you don’t like him, ignore it. If you do like him, ping back with “ur retard.”

His Go-to Texts: Stupid movie quotes, like “night is a very dark time for me” (Blades of Glory) or “break yo’self fool” (Superbad)

Translation: Guys compete with one another to memorize the most lines from their favorite movies. When he types one to you, it’s an attempt at flirting. He’s trying to show you how funny he is (or thinks he is).

Your Move: Besides impressing you, he wants to see if you’re savvy enough to know what he’s referencing. So Google the quote he sent to find out where it’s from then shoot one back. No time? Just send “i love lamp” (Anchorman).

Your Better Move: If you’re into him, ” Frauline, will you permit me?” (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) If you’re not, “Negative Ghost rider, the pattern is full” (Top Gun).

His Go-to Texts: Anything but a straight-up yes or not: “sounds like an option” or “maybe”

Translation: He has zero interest in trying to come up with plans for the two of you or even attempting to make a decision.

Your Move: Don’t let the fact that he won’t give you an answer stop you from moving forward or getting what you want. Write back “ok, give me a call or I’ll just decide.”

Real Meaning: There are three different things that might be going on here. First, the guy might really just not care and is brushing you off. Second, he is attempting to be aloof to make you think he’s more important and in demand than he really is. The third is that he really can’t commit to anything. When I was working as an attorney, I almost never made definite plans with my girlfriend. It was always “probably.” I wasn’t trying to be cute, I was being honest. I never knew when the boss lady might come in and tell me my life had just been canceled.

Your Better Move: If the guy is brushing you off, go find someone else. If he’s trying to act cooler than he really is, ditch him. If he’s interested by not committing because he can’t, then recognize that his answer is a sign that he respects you. He’s not only being honest with you, but he’s counting on the fact that you’ll be smart and level headed enough to appreciate that he’s giving the best answer that he can.

Straight from the March 2010 Cosmo, some really terrifically bad things to do in the sack that will lead to your most awkward Valentine’s Day ever.

Testicles handle heat better than most other areas down there, so put a warm washcloth over his boys and gently squeeze him through it.

Ladies, if you go get a wash cloth and put it on his junk, he’s going to spend the rest of the night (and maybe his life) thinking that he isn’t getting clean down there. Nothing quite like making your guy paranoid that his boys smell.

Wrap a shoelace around the middle of his shaft once, so you have two long ends. Then while giving oral attention to his tip, pull on the strings, flossing it up and down. It provides a bit of friction that feels great.

First of all, guys know how crazy girls are. We see you trying up Mr. Happigrand and we’re going to think you’re about to strangle him because you dreamt we cheated on you and you’re too stupid/crazy to know the difference between real life and a dream.

Also: rug burn.

Ice can be too cold down there, but fruit has just the right amount of coolness to cause a feelgood tingle. Chew a small piece of mango (but don’t swallow it) then take him in your mouth. You can use whatever fruit you have, just don’t try anything too acidic, as it can burn him.

Also, don’t try a pear or guava unless you want your guy asking why your mouth is grainy. As weird as this one is though, it might not be completely horrible. Just be sure to get out that wash cloth when you’re done. No one like sticky dick.

Apply a little pressure and gently slide a fine-tooth comb’s teeth along his shaft, pulling it toward his body so you’re not pushing. The light scratching gets blood circulating throughout his member.

OH HELL NO. He might have hair, but he ain’t getting combed. No teeth, of any kind, should make contact at any point, ever.

NO TEETH ON THE PENIS. K? Thx.

The patch of skin between his testicles and anus–the perineum–is full of orgasmic potential. [...] The perineum is located on top of his prostate (the male G-spot), so if you press hard enough, you’ll hit that ultra-plreasing area, double the feel-good thrills.

Touch that area and we’ll think you’re going for the ass. Some guys are into that, but a lot of guys are going to freak out. Also, if you start pressing around down for the prostate, we’re going to think you’re going for the ass and don’t understand basic anatomy.

And guess what, there’s more:

During oral, stop lavishing his shaft with your tongue, and bring your lips to this pleasure patch. Purse them together like you’re going in for a kiss, but instead of a smooch, lightly suck on the skin.

Anyone who is at all amused by the locker room environment of blogs and forums will probably find this amusing. The Summer 2009 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender published an article by Ann Bartow on internet harassment and sexism.

The article points out that women are the internet are more likely to get attacked more, and have more gender-specific insults hurled at them. The article’s purported reason? Gotta be sexism.

This is a conclusion that reveals a lack of thoughtfulness and creativity. It’s also a conclusion that requires ignoring people you quote to back up your position. To back up her position, Ms. Bartow quotes Ann Althouse speaking in an an interview on “Blogging While Female.”

In the blogosphere, it’s sort of like the Wild West, and you actually can try to push people out. You can push women out. There’s a way of trying to get women to leave and because it’s a rough world where people are trying to climb to the top, they will use whatever techniques they can, you know? And so I think that makes you vulnerable as a woman, but you don’t have to be. There’s a positive side to it, too, that you can use. You get attention just for being a woman because it’s less common.

In this one little paragraph, Professor Althouse has implied two non-sexist reasons for the attacks women get online, but Ms. Bartow is apparently too lazy to do any sort of basic critical thinking.

“they will use whatever techniques they can” If you’re fat, they make fat jokes. If you make typos, you’re called retarded. If your a Jew you hide gold coins up your nose. If you’re black you’re an affirmative action baby. And if you’re a straight, white male, well… you’re the one posting the comments.

The point is that people often make facially sexist remarks not because they hate women, but because they know those remarks will sting, and something that stings is more likely to cause an emotional reaction, and emotional reactions often come in the form of dramatic responses, and those tend to be hilarious. We don’t drop bombs on other countries because we love the rapid expansion of gasses. We drop bombs because they’re effective, we’re indifferent to the physics.

“You get attention just for being a woman because it’s less common.” Women get more attacks online not because people really want to attack women, but because everyone gets attacked online, and women get more attention. Making fun of the same stuff over and over get boring. Boys have been making fun of other boys since they first learned to talk. It’s not very interesting any more.

This is the same reason why I don’t make fun of conservatives very much. Conservatives rarely say anything new. Positions against gay marriage haven’t really evolved at all. But liberals, or “progressives,” if you will, are always doing something new, which provides new material to laugh at. Also, I don’t like making fun of conservatives because it feels like I’m picking on a retarded kid.

Anyways, since women rarely expose themselves openly to criticism on the internet, it follows that they’re going to get pounced on. But, it’s not because people want to attack women. They just want to attack something new and different.

In the end though, what really makes the internet a different place for women is that it is a locker room. Boys have a home field advantage. We grew up with this sort of behavior. We don’t let it get to us and we know how to respond, or how to not respond.

Here’s what happens on the internet when someone makes fun of a girl:

Troll: “You’re a fat slut.”

Girl: “I’m not fat you asshole! OMG! Why would you say that! You’re so mean! You don’t even know me! Why would you say something like that about me?!?!?!”

Everyone Else: “LOL. What a dumb bitch.”

Here’s how the same thing goes down with a guy making fun of another guy on the internet:

Troll: “You’re a faggy douchebag.”

Guy: “Fail.”

Everyone Else: “Epic fail. What a dumb bitch.”

Maybe if Ms. Bartow and the ladies at Harvard Journal of Law and Dugg Down watched this video, they’d have a better understanding of the contextual dynamics of playing the dozens on the internet: link [disabling embedding makes BL1Y a saaaad panda].

The Juris Doctors were created by law schools.
They were laid off.
They devolved.
They look and feel human.
Some are programmed to think they are human.
There are many copies.
And they don't have a plan.